The committee appointed by the High Court assigned with a specific task also acts as the High Court. In this regard it would be appropriate to take note of the constitutional bench judgment of the Apex Court delivered in the case of State of U.P. Vs. Batuk Deo Pati Tripathi and Anr., (1978) 2 SCC 102. In the aforesaid case, it has been held that it is a misconception that control over the subordinate judiciary, which is vested by Article 235 in the High Court, must be exercised by the whole body of the Judges. In this case, the Apex Court has specifically held that the exercise of disciplinary power by a committee of judges of the High Court to whom the power is entrusted by the Full Court for a convenient transaction of the business is not an impermissible delegation of power. The relevant portion of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:-
“15. Yet another misconception may now be cleared. It is urged on behalf of the respondent by his learned Counsel Shri Misra that under Article 216, 'High Court' means the entire body of Judges appointed to the Court and therefore, the control over the subordinate judiciary which is vested by Article 235 in the High Court must be exercised by the whole body of Judges. The thrust of the argument is that the High Court cannot delegate its functions or power to a Judge or a smaller body of Judges of the court. This argument requires consideration of the question whether any delegation as such is involved in the process whereby a Judge or a Committee of Judges of the court, like the Administrative Committee in the instant case, is authorised by the whole court to act on behalf of the court.
16. For answering this question it is necessary in the first place to bear in mind that the power of control over the subordinate courts which is vested in the High Courts comprises such numerous matters, often involving consideration of details of the minutest nature, that if the whole High Court is required to consider every one of those matters, the exercise of control instead of becoming effective will tend to cause delay and confusion in the administration of justice in the State. A construction which will frustrate the very object of the salient provisions contained in Article 235 ought, as far as possible, to be avoided. The control vested in the High Courts by that article comprehends, according to our decisions, a large variety of matters like transfers, subsequent postings, leave, promotions other than initial promotions, imposition of minor penalties which do not fall within Article 311, decisions regarding compulsory retirements, recommendations for imposition of major penalties which fall within Article 311, entries in character rolls and so forth. If every Judge is to be associated personally and directly with the decision on every one of these matters, several important matters pertaining to the High Court's administrative affairs will pile into arrears like court arrears. In fact, it is no exaggeration to say that the control will be better and more effective exercised if a smaller committee of Judges has the authority of the court to consider the manifold matters falling within the purview of Article 235. Bearing in mind therefore the nature of the power which that article confers on the High Courts, we are of the opinion that it is wrong to characterise as 'delegation' the process whereby the entire High Court authorises a Judge or some of the Judges of the Court to act on behalf of the whole Court. Such an authorisation effectuates the purpose of Article 235 and indeed without it the control vested in the High Court over the subordinate courts will tend gradually to become lax and ineffective. Administrative functions are only a part, though an important part, of the High Courts' constitutional functions. Judicial functions ought to occupy and do in fact consume the best part of a Judge's time. For balancing these two-fold functions it is inevitable that the administrative duties should be left to be discharged by some on behalf of all the Judges. Judicial functions brooke no such sharing of responsibilities by any instrumentality.
17. The High Court has not by its Rules authorised any extraneous authority, as in Shamsher Singh (supra) to do what the Constitution enables and empowers to do. The Administrative Judge or the Administrative Committee is a mere instrumentality through which the entire Courts acts for the more convenient transaction of its business, the assumed basis of the arrangement being that such instrumentalities will only act in furtherance of the broad policies evolved from time to time by the High Court as a whole. Each Judge of the High Court is an integral limb of the Court. He is its alter ego. It is therefore inappropriate to say that a Judge or a Committee of Judges of the High Court authorised by the Court to act on its behalf is a delegate of the Court.
18. Since a Judge of the High Court or an Administrative Committee consisting of High Court Judges is, for the purposes of matters falling within Article 235, not a delegate of the High Court, the principle enunciated by S.A. de Smith in his famous work on Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd edn, 1973, P. 263) that a discretionary power must, in general, be exercised only by the authority to which it has been committed has no application. The various cases discussed by the learned author have arisen, as stated by him at p. 265, in diverse contexts and many of them turn upon unique points of statutory interpretation. The true position as stated by the author is: The maxim delegatus non-potest delegere does not enunciate a rule knows no exception; it is a rule of construction to the effect that "a discretion conferred by statute is prima facie intended to be exercised by the authority on which the statute has conferred it and by no other authority, but this intention may be negatived by any contrary indications found in the language, scope or object of the statute. We have pointed out above that the amplitude of the power conferred by Article 235, the imperative need that the High Courts must be enabled to transact their administrative business more conveniently and on awareness of the realities of the situation, particularly of the practical difficulties involved in a consideration by the whole court, even by circulation, of every day-to-day matter pertaining to control over the District and subordinate Courts, lead to the conclusion that by rules framed under Article 235 of the Constitution the High Court ought to be conceded the power to authorise on Administrative Judge or an Administrative Committee of Judges to act on behalf of the Court. Accordingly, we uphold the minority judgment of the Full Bench that Rule 1 of Chapter III of the 1952 Rules framed by the Allahabad High Court is within the framework of Article 235. The recommendation made by the Administrative Committee that the respondent should be compulsorily retired cannot therefore be said to suffer from any legal or constitutional infirmity.
Another judgment on the subject given by the Apex Court is the judgment delivered in the case of High Court of Judicature at Bombay Vs. Shirish Kumar Rangarao Patil 1997 (6) SCC 339. The relevant portion of the observation made in this judgment are reproduced hereunder:
"It would thus be settled law that the control of the subordinate judiciary under Article 235 is vested in the High Court. After the appointment of the judicial officers by the Governor, the power to transfer, maintain discipline and keep control over them vests in the High Court. The Chief Justice of the High Court is first among the Judges of the High Court. The action taken is by the High Court and not by the Chief Justice in his individual capacity, nor by the Committee of Judges. For the convenient transaction of administrative business in the Court, the Full Court of the Judges of the High Court generally passes a resolution authorizing the Chief Justice to constitute various committees including the committee to deal with disciplinary matters pertaining to the subordinate judiciary or the ministerial staff working therein. Article 235, therefore, relates to the power of taking a decision by the High Court against a member of the subordinate judiciary. Such a decision either to hold an enquiry into the conduct of a judicial officer, subordinate or higher judiciary, or to have the enquiry conducted through a District or Additional District Judge etc. and to consider the report of the enquiry officer for taking further action is of the High Court. Equally, the decision to consider the report of the enquiry officer and to take follow-up action and to make appropriate recommendation to the Disciplinary Committee or to the Governor, is entirely of the High Court which acts through the Committee of the Judges authorised by the Full Court. Once a resolution is passed by the Full Court of the High Court, there is no further necessity to refer the matter again to the Full Court while taking such procedural steps relating to control of the subordinate judiciary.
Hence if we see ratio of aforesaid judgments thus clearly holds that the decision of the standing Committee of the High Court constituted under the Rules is legal and binding. It does not suffer from any infirmity.
Thus the intention of the legislature in having approved the Rules framed by the Gujarat High Court which were framed long ago is writ large and there is no confusion in this regard if already notified by Governor.
